In the wake of the latest county computer contracting scandal, attention has refocused on the lack of performance from a county organized task force formed two years ago that was supposed to keep an eye on the myriad of multi-million dollar computer contracts throughout the sprawling county bureaucracy.

This week, County Auditor David Sundstrom revealed that he had terminated a small portion of a contract with ACS State and Local Solutions after problems arose with the company’s work.

With an overall contract valued at more than $25 million, ACS is the county’s largest Information technology contractor.

That has left some wondering why a county task force – formed in the wake of a different ACS flap three years ago – didn’t spot the latest problems and hasn’t done much to shed light on the county’s computer contracts.

“The committee has not accomplished its mission,” said panel member Nick Berardino, general manager of the Orange County Employees Association. “The meetings have been reduced to staff updates on various projects and justifying more lavish contracts to outside vendors.”

The IT Working Group was formed in 2006 following a problem with ACS in which a $6 million computer main frame was delivered to the county before supervisors even voted on the item and a competitor accused ACS of having inside access to bids. That came on the heels of other problems with a Health Care Agency computer contract for medical billing that also went over budget and underperformed. Shortly after the ACS flap, the county’s head technology chief, Dr. Dan Hatton, resigned. After Hatton’s resignation, the district attorney charged another high level county IT manager with seeking bribes from subcontractors.

That same year, then-supervisor Lou Correa announced the task force, selling its central aim as reviewing all existing contracts.

“It is disturbing that the taxpayers were told we were going to be aggressive regarding reviewing these contracts when in fact it never happened,” Berardino said.

Correa said the working group was supposed to review general countywide IT goals, aims and strategies as well as specific contracts.

“There was always something before getting to those contracts,” he said adding that the county bureaucracy always viewed his task force with “apprehension.”

Even today, there still seems to be confusion about what the IT Working Group is supposed to review.

Supervisor Janet Nguyen – who recently took over chairmanship of the panel – said she had no idea that contract reviews, such as the ACS relationship, were central to the group’s existence.

“No one said this committee was formed because of ACS,” Nguyen said. “My understanding of the IT Working Group is that we are supposed to look at all the IT systems in the county.”

Nguyen said the group has been studying issues such as whether to centralize IT functions or leave them as currently configured with numerous county departments sporting their own IT systems, personnel and contractors.

County CEO Tom Mauk said he always viewed the working group as responsible for general policy, and not specific contract reviews. Mauk gave special praise for the county’s new head of IT, Satish Ajmani, noting that county supervisors now get quarterly updates of technology projects. Mauk also said Ajmani and Sundstrom had identified the problems with the current ACS project proactively.

Mauk said monitoring contract performance is a management issue and not one left to an oversight committee.

He also questioned Berardino’s interest in the working group noting, “Nick has an agenda: to have the county hire employees instead of contracting out even if it’s more expensive for taxpayers.”

Berardino did successfully motion to have the ACS contract reviewed this January. That study is now complete, Ajmani said and is being reviewed.

Asked why an ACS review took several years to begin given the county’s history with the firm, Ajmani said he had concentrated more on putting together a general technology strategy for the county before focusing on specific contracts. That also should be unveiled soon before supervisors, he said.

That triggered a vigorous response from Berardino.

“Satish’s rationale is typical,” he said. “They have taken over two years to look at how they should be organized. The County does this while they continue to send taxpayer dollars out the door on contracts and award new contracts.”

For Correa, the idea for the Working Group remains as straightforward as when it was born.

“You need people there to keep kicking the tires and asking the tough questions about whether these contracts are living up to the expectations.”

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.